This union is no longer credible

Former GWU deputy secretary general Emanuel Micallef says Malta’s largest union has lost its credibility and there is no way it can recover it with the present leadership

As the extent of the split within the General Workers’ Union becomes clearer every day, with the latest blow being the mass resignation of almost all committee members of Josephine Attard Sultana’s section, the former right hand man of Secretary General Tony Zarb believes the union’s credibility has been irremediably lost.
Reflecting on his bitter and acrimonious ousting last October, Emanuel Micallef says he sees a “photocopy” in Attard Sultana’s unceremonious dismissal last week.
“It seems like what was anonymous is becoming official,” he says referring to the infamous leaflets spread around union corridors about him and his so-called “clique” made of Attard Sultana, Emanuel Zammit and Karmenu Vella, branded as “Nationalists” by the anonymous pamphleteer. “It seems like the strategy of whoever wants to keep power is to attack on three fronts, in fact I see a photocopy between Josephine’s case and mine. One is to start accusing whoever is not toeing the line of being a Nationalist; whatever he or she does is being done to please the Nationalists, because of a Nationalist agenda. This was said in my regard and even in Josephine’s. Secondly they close all avenues of communication to you, you have no way of making your voice heard, while they use the union newspaper with articles, editorials and front pages against you. They hide behind union procedures so that if you want to write anything it has to be approved by the secretary general, even when you are in direct confrontation with him. Then there are the anonymous attacks, there are people who are instigated to provide material full of insinuations and allegations.”
Micallef was among the first to speak of a split within the union in the wake of Attard Sultana’s dismissal, an episode he says confirms that the deep-rooted problems go high up as the leadership.
“There is definitely a split, I hope not a split in principles,” he says. “I still want to believe that in principle the GWU is a trade union that has the workers’ interests at heart. I believe that whoever is in the union has that ideal and is working for it. However, the question is how you put that ideal into practice, the modus operandi, adapting to today’s circumstances and the demands of the labour market and to the workers’ expectations of today. If the union retains a mentality and leadership style that was maybe valid 10 or 15 years ago, the result will be failure. In Josephine’s case, if one had to credit the administration for abiding by the statute, the impact all this left is counterproductive. Everyone is asking what’s happening, the members more than the delegates. How could a union that is supposed to defend its members afford to sack its officials? I sincerely hope they realise where they’re heading to.”
Micallef believes the massive political disenchantment and overall leadership problem in the country puts the union in an even greater responsibility to give direction to its members and to the nation.
“With the climate we’re in, whoever is not a political fanatic is looking for alternatives. Even the fanatics, if they’re Nationalists are asking what happened to the government, whether they need to go in opposition to wake up, while the Labourites are saying they finally have a chance of returning to government after 20 years of opposition but their party is doing nothing to be a credible alternative. In this scenario I see an extremely important role for the union, not on the political level, but on all other issues of national importance, such as education, investment, jobs, pensions. The union is not doing this; actually it has lost its credibility to do it.”
He leaves no doubt that this credibility cannot be regained under the present leadership. After making the customary courteous disclaimer that in saying this he is neither “attacking the GWU as an organisation nor the people in the leadership,” Micallef says that if he had to look at it “professionally as a former insider and now an observer I would say that if they remain in the top posts there is no chance it will recover credibility.”
“Credibility means that I criticise the government not just for the sake of being against government. I don’t show what a bully I am by affronting Austin Gatt and Lawrence Gonzi for an applause by a couple of people in front of me. A real trade unionist can face Austin Gatt and Lawrence Gonzi around a table and get them to listen, understand and move from their original position. I see the union has lost this credibility today and the people at the top may not even realise this. It could be they are so ingrained in this limbo that they are imagining that whoever is criticising them wants to destroy the union, that whoever is criticising them is Nationalist, they just can’t see the poor state they are in. Definitely the present leadership does not aspire for a union that can give vision, direction and a sense of leadership for the working population.
“When we speak of democratic processes I wouldn’t stop at the theory. What interests me is how we put democracy into practice. If the highest authority in the union is the national congress, and therefore the delegates, that would be true because they have a vote and they decide. But the delegates aren’t the leaders, they need leadership, someone who gives them a sense of direction. If you don’t have that sense of direction, in the case of the union this refers to the president, the secretary general, the deputy president and deputy secretary general – if you don’t give a sense of direction – then the delegates cannot even choose the direction.
“In a way, with all respect to Tony Zarb, he is not a leader. He is more of a compromise type of person, in the sense however that instead of having vision and coming out with a direction, Tony just listens to what the people in front of him say. If, say, we’re 12 people discussing pensions, and you have eight saying pensionable age should not be increased, and the rest are saying it should go up to 68, I can tell you Tony’s position immediately – he will side with the majority. This happens every time. This is a problem. Whenever he took a stand, he was always pushed to take it, he always needs a lackey (forcina) to do something. The first thing he assures is his position, and that’s what the delegates aren’t realising yet.”
Micallef says he is amazed at how the union’s administration has lost its “sense of tolerance for the views of the minority” within it.
“In my time there were the same people but the sense of diversity of opinions and positions was clearly there, I’ve lived that. I think we could handle it in our time by giving a voice to whoever wanted to speak.”
Another thing that he says has changed in the union since his departure is how the union’s sections have been undermined by the administration through its direct intervention, which in the latest episode resulted in the dramatic banishment of Attard Sultana and her section president from the union’s headquarters.
“This has come out in Josephine’s court case too: that the union’s sections are autonomous as much as the organisation itself,” Micallef insists. “Our discussions at the union were always based upon the respect for the autonomy of every section. In fact we had internal discussions about how far you can grant that autonomy, but we always felt that if you kill this autonomy the idea behind the union’s structure becomes senseless because the sections are a reflection of the diversity of the labour market and what happens to the public sector does not necessarily apply to the private. If you kill that you’re undermining the foundations of the union. Now that autonomy is almost lost and the administration’s message, even if perhaps unintentionally, is that it decides everything. “I’m dumbfounded because in my time God forbid you touch Gejtu Mercieca’s section, and then I was deputy secretary in charge of the section. At times I would plead with him to update me on what’s happening in his section.”
Micallef says most of the time he and Mercieca would “agree to disagree” and adds there was not much trust in the air.
“Experience taught me how to sense who is genuine and who is trying to deceive you. I did not trust him much, I treated him for what he was.”
Zarb’s explanation behind Attard Sultana’s dismissal was that she was not giving a service to her members, but that is hardly credible says Micallef.
“I’m sure it was not the case that Josephine didn’t do her job. I don’t buy that, it’s not the reason for her dismissal. He might have had a couple of delegates who were not happy with Josephine and went to complain about her, I understand that, but sacking her because of that? Do they just say enough is enough (issa daqshekk)? So are they now using ‘enough is enough’ in the union?”
The section secretaries had actually said “enough is enough” to Tony Zarb himself back in April 2003, straight after the referendum and election results proved the union to have been on the wrong side of history.
In that ill-fated month, the section leaders had decided to force Zarb out of the union, with Micallef then his deputy taking over after what seemed like a veritable coup. In just three days, the decision was suddenly overruled by the union’s council even though Zarb’s resignation had already been made public, in one of the union’s darkest affairs.
“Funnily enough I was not involved in the decision to get rid of Tony Zarb,” Micallef says. “I was not aware of what was building up, I only got to know at a later stage; I was not informed in the beginning. I still don’t know who instigated it. All I know is that all secretaries were meeting in a room and they called me in to tell me Tony Zarb could no longer remain at the helm, that he was no longer credible. In fact at one point in time they also asked me to be the liaison between them and Tony Zarb to try to reach an arrangement with him.
“Even Salvu Sammut was for removing Tony Zarb, all of them were, at that point in time there was consensus on this. I remember well the discussion that ensued, as one had even said Zarb could not even work any longer inside the union. I had pointed out that he could not end up jobless, as I ended up after all (last October), so we decided to keep him in employment. We had faced him with that, he accepted to resign and asked for certain conditions – to keep going abroad to represent the union, to attend union conferences, to remain a council member and all that.
“In two days’ time, things changed again. We had already issued a press release about his removal, but some of the original group who wanted to remove him changed their mind. There was also a campaign on Super One on a programme by Manwel Cuschieri in which he was asking what was happening to the union, and that raised the pressure. Tony Zarb did not even leave his office. He was crying, with tears in his eyes there, saying he did not want to lose his job, even after we announced his removal. Then we went to the council, where some were saying this was all planned secretly, that they were left in the dark, and they set up a commission with me again in it to persuade Tony to take back his resignation.”
It sounds contradictory, verging on the perverse, for Micallef to first ask Zarb to leave and then to remain, in just a span of three days, but Zarb’s former deputy finds no contradiction in this, saying he was just delivering the message of a decision taken by others.
“I was always respecting the organisation’s decisions,” Micallef insists. “I want to clarify this: Afterwards some started interpreting this as my plot to get rid of Tony Zarb, out of ambition, so that I take over instead of him. In reality I only took over the vacancy as deputy in the interim until an election is called and whoever wanted to contest could contest. I was perhaps in a bit of a better position because I was occupying the seat, but otherwise it would have been an open contest.”
Among Zarb’s request to accept to return to the helm was to remain in office for another two years, after which he would not contest again. It was during lunch as they were having a plate of pasta, as Micallef was telling Zarb of his intentions to contest for secretary general as his term was nearing its end, that Zarb told him he would remain so as not to “please the Nationalists”.
“He had told me ‘I still have to offer to the union’ and he also told me ‘I don’t want to please the Nationalists after what they did to me; if I go I would be pleasing them’. I mean he is obsessed with the Nationalists, if you read what he wrote today about the Nationalists you understand what goes through his mind. And he remained there. That was the story.”
About the union’s inexcusable U-turn about the very man leading it, Micallef believes some of the secretaries were not convinced of what they were doing.
“I see that today too – you have secretaries who never have an opinion, they just go with the establishment because they are afraid that if they ever say anything they may be interpreted as going against the grain and therefore they remain yes men of the powers that be. I really believe the delegates will one day realise what’s happening. So far they haven’t, because they may still be blinded by the partisan rhetoric, that they should not please the Nationalists. But they will eventually realise that deep down there are some serious problems. After I left there were some who said the union had lost me; now after Josephine they are confirming what I had said back then, they are realising what a disaster they have ended in.”
Top on the list of the union’s disasters, apart from Attard Sultana’s dismissal, Micallef refers to Sea Malta, the state company that was shut down leaving the workers represented by the union out of a job after protracted negotiations in which Zarb proved to be inflexible, with Investments Minister Austin Gatt pouncing on him like a hungry tiger to humiliate the union.
“At Sea Malta, they messed it up, whatever they say,” Micallef says. “They had a chance to come out with flying colours and they messed it up. The same with Cargo Handling – it’s true it was a tender but there were other ways of dealing with it.
“If you take the port workers who have appointed George Abela as advisor for their section – one can say they went for the best advisor they could find – but how can the union treat these 400 port workers, pioneers of trade unionism, who tell you they do not trust the union’s lawyers and resort to an outsider, as if nothing happened? The union says that what’s important is that there is the section secretary in the negotiations, but who’s leading those negotiations? How can the union go on as if nothing happened? If you’re going to accept their decision to use George Abela’s services, then you should accept it seriously, not half-heartedly. If these members have trust in George Abela, and the leadership don’t trust him, in fact they have been attacking him venomously, what are you going to do then?”
George Abela, in fact, represents another massive fallout with Zarb’s leadership ever since he had advised the union, as its lawyer, not to issue strikes in retaliation against the budget, refusing to sign a legal letter in response to the government’s court actions.
Now as the port workers section’s legal advisor and Attard Sultana’s lawyer, Abela is haunting the union’s administration with his defiance, as its members are resorting to their lawyer of trust as opposed to the GWU’s leadership and legal team. Surely, the union must be obsessed Abela wants to destroy it?
“That’s how they look at it from the inside,” Micallef says. “But if I were there, the question I would ask is, why are workers searching for other sources to defend them? I would ask what’s wrong with me. These (port workers) are people who have always been very close to the union, they always paid their membership first and you could rely on them, and now they are resorting to third parties to solve their industrial problems. Of course George Abela gives legal services and he is doing his job.”
Micallef also believes that in its vicious attack on Abela, the union is also conditioned by his historic fallout with Alfred Sant in 1998.
“In fact the attacks they make on him are all instigated by this fact,” he says. “The accusations for which he is suing them for libel are that he has an ‘affinity with the PN’, that he has contracts with the government for his services, so deep down that’s what it is.”
On the other hand, Micallef dismisses the widespread belief that Labour keeps interfering in the GWU’s matters, as the MLP is suing the PN for libel for suggesting it was behind the decision to sack Attard Sultana.
“Alfred Sant used to make it clear to our council that he wanted the union to tackle industrial issues – that was up to us – and the party had its own political priorities. He used to make that distinction and I believe there is no interference per se.
“I believe the Labour Party is not happy with the split in the union and with the way it is handling it. The Labour Party knows that 60 per cent of the delegates of the GWU are the same delegates they have at Labour conferences. When you have uncertainty and instability within the union this will be carried over to the Labour party by the same people. Labour is suffering most because of the split in the GWU. One Labour delegate told me ‘look at this, just because we’re a bit plain sailing the GWU does this to us’. So if there was pressure I’m sure Sant would stop them at all costs from doing these things.
“The point is that while at administration level the party and the union work separately, at the grassroots level the members do not distinguish between an industrial and a political issue, and that conditions them, because you have people who ask how come the party is not defending the union, or who ask how the union is not taking the party side. The victim in this whole issue is the Malta Labour Party, and the more they attack George Abela the more they worsen things.”
Tony Zarb and the union president, Salv Sammut, are meanwhile continuing their attacks on other union officials. Last Wednesday, Sammut wrote an article on l-orizzont which many observers are certain referred to Karmenu Vella, the secretary of the services and professional section, whom he described without naming him as “a poisonous viper posing as a lamb.”
“That’s what he does,” Micallef says about Sammut’s nasty habit of attacking individuals without naming them on the union’s daily newspaper. “That’s what he did to me. He had written allegations against me without mentioning me by name, and I had challenged him to say he was referring to me, but he wouldn’t. He never does. It’s their tactic, to throw mud and a lot of unsubstantiated insinuations. When I read that kind of article, I ask, isn’t it against the interests of the union that its president writes in that way?”
As to his own future in trade unionism, Micallef says a lot of people have urged him to set up a new union especially since Attard Sultana’s dismissal, but he would not be the one to front such a project at this stage.
“I’m not the person who will be taking this initiative at this point in time,” he says.
He rather believes in forming “a social movement of independent-minded people”, grouping “floating voters, people who have their own ideas,” but even that seems remote given this country’s intellectuals’ convention of shutting up about anything that might remotely affect their career prospects.
“Despite the fact that Malta is very much polarised, you find even party activists who insist they have a mind of their own, that not whatever the party says is dogma, there is a growing number of such people. The question as always is who is going to bell the cat; you’d be amazed how many valid people tell you they would rather not be involved because of their job in this or that company or because they have a job at university.”